Expanded criteria for carcinoid liver debulking: Maintaining survival and increasing the number of eligible patients

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

58 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background. Cytoreduction of carcinoid liver metastases typically aims for $90% debulking in patients without extrahepatic disease. Data on the impact of less-restrictive resection criteria and other clinical and tumor-specific factors on outcomes are limited. Methods. Records of carcinoid patients undergoing liver debulking from 2007 to 2011 were reviewed. Debulking threshold was 70%, extrahepatic disease did not preclude cytoreduction, and positive margins were allowed. Kaplan-Meier liver progression-free (PFS) and disease-specific (DSS) survival were calculated and compared by log-rank analysis and statistical significance of differences in distributions of factors between patient groups was determined by chi-squared analysis. Results. Fifty-two patients were identified. Complete resection of intrahepatic and extrahepatic gross disease was achieved in 12 patients. All primaries reviewed were low grade, but one third of patients had at least one intermediate-grade metastasis. Fifteen patients (29%) had liver progression; median PFS was 72 months. Five-year DSS was 90%, with all deaths from liver failure. Only age was an important prognostic factor for PFS and DSS. Five-year DSS for patients <50 years was 73% and was 97% for patients 50 or older (P = .03). Conclusion. The use of expanded criteria for debulking resulted in 90% 5-year DSS. Although younger age portends a poorer prognosis, the favorable PFS and DSS justify also using expanded criteria in this subgroup.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1369-1377
Number of pages9
JournalSurgery (United States)
Volume156
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Expanded criteria for carcinoid liver debulking: Maintaining survival and increasing the number of eligible patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this